Yes they are. Haven't you tried PHP on the CLR for example? Can access any other class in the framework. ASP's VBScript is a programming language. Javascript is a fullfledged programming language as well. http://www.aptana.com/jaxer (one example of it)

To run them as stand alone apps, they must either go though a different interpreter than usual or be emulated. So technically they would be completely different subjects since they are not being ran though the same parser. Regardless, I am not referring to them in that context, I am referring to them as they are normally used.

MySQL isn't. It's an application. Is Visual Studio a programming language? Or PostgreSQL? Recursion panic! I said SQL was a data manipulation language. SQL in a database is also a data specification language and then with stored procedures and flow control constructs it becomes a programming language, as you say.

But the language (t-SQL) that you query it in is commonly referred to as the application's name (MySQL). Its a case of common references. When I say I program MySQL, I am not referring the the application itself, rather the querying language it uses. You just did the same with "I said SQL was a data manipulation language".

An operating system is a program, just one that works directly with the machine.

As far as I'm concerned, an operating system is a big program. It's run with the same fetch-execute cycle as any other program, besides that the CPU has hooks for virtual memory, interrupts and traps which not normal programs in user space have access to, but only because of the layered security model in operating systems (which if you take an operating system like singularity, doesn't exist, instead they have software isolated processes). Care to tell me why it's not?

Our difference is just that of semantics it seems. In my view, an OS is a collection of programs, libraries and tools that offers an abstraction to the hardware (through the kernel). Its true, an OS facilitates the programming of the processor, but strictly calling it a program is like calling a consortium a company. In effect, a consortium is not a company, but rather multiple companies acting together.

Anyway, when linking to that post I was referring more to the general advice in the thread. I just linked to the first post with misleading information. There are many more examples like this I've run into recently, this was just one from this community that I read through only minutes before.

Our difference is just that of semantics it seems. In my view, an OS is a collection of programs, libraries and tools that offers an abstraction to the hardware (through the kernel). Its true, an OS facilitates the programming of the processor, but strictly calling it a program is like calling a consortium a company. In effect, a consortium is not a company, but rather multiple companies acting together.

Anyway, when linking to that post I was referring more to the general advice in the thread. I just linked to the first post with misleading information. There are many more examples like this I've run into recently, this was just one from this community that I read through only minutes before.

So you're saying operating systems have to be big? By what standard? What about mobile/sensor networks/smart dust research operating systems? Aren't they operating systems? http://www.tinyos.net/ for example? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinyos It's 579 812 bytes long, in its current size. I would wager to say, that's not a big collection of programs. And what about monolithic kernels where most of the actual OS is in kernel space?

To run them as stand alone apps, they must either go though a different interpreter than usual or be emulated. So technically they would be completely different subjects since they are not being ran though the same parser. Regardless, I am not referring to them in that context, I am referring to them as they are normally used.

Well, how am I supposed to know your domain of discourse? I refer to them as what they in fact are, not what they are in the context of a webserver and client web browser. They, referring to the languages, would of course be identical to the other context and hence identity of the language (in their normal use that is), ceteris paribus, if all other things equal, such as language grammar, stack unwinding, exception handling, type inferrence/typing (static vs dynamic) etc etc, which is the case afaik.

I can't say I have done much JavaScript programming though, outside a browser. But the fact remains; they are programming languages and as long as they are turing complete, there's no particular difference between them and "normal" programming language. Otherwise, what would your definition be, that sets them apart from other programming languages? That's really the core question here, in our discussion.

According to the Turing-thesis, all models of computation are equivalent, even if we're doing lamda calculus, assembly or turing machines. Maybe you're after the fact that they are interpreted and not compiled, but that doesn't make them ~programming languages.

But the language (t-SQL) that you query it in is commonly referred to as the application's name (MySQL). Its a case of common references. When I say I program MySQL, I am not referring the the application itself, rather the querying language it uses. You just did the same with "I said SQL was a data manipulation language".

Well, then I should get better at programming some Microsoft , or maybe even some Ubuntu or Firefox. You know MySQL is also a company, Aktiebolag MySQL in Göteborg in Sweden.

I can't see how either SQL or 'data manipulation language' is 'something which has a querying language', I'm way too bad at SQL to be trying to categorize it across years [SQL99-SQL2003 etc], across database-specific extensions and so on, but here's Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sql

Anyway, we both agree with each other anyway, so I will smile and walk away .

So you're saying operating systems have to be big? By what standard? What about mobile/sensor networks/smart dust research operating systems? Aren't they operating systems? http://www.tinyos.net/ for example? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinyos It's 579 812 bytes long, in its current size. I would wager to say, that's not a big collection of programs. And what about monolithic kernels where most of the actual OS is in kernel space?

I don't recall ever saying anything about how large an OS needs to be. You did though